In my mind, Aaron Lynch is the best pass rusher in college football not named Jadeveon Clowney. His size compares favorably to Trent Murphy but is much faster with 4.5-4.6 wheels. Lynch sat out the 2012 season after transferring to South Florida. If he declares, I could see him getting drafted on the first day.

Moncrief is a physical and fast receiver with great hands (H/T HighlandHawk). He is everything we are hoping Chris Harper can be. I would prefer one of Brandon Coleman or Mike Evans but don't think it would be realistic to expect either to be available at the end of the 2nd Round.

Exum is a very physical DB and seems like a perfect fit for the Hawks defense. He would be an excellent replacement for Brandon Browner. Exum did an admirable job against FSU's Kelvin Benjamin who measures 6'4/245/4.6.

Alternates:

1. DB, Keon Lyn, Syracuse (6'1/200/4.4) - Extremely close call between Exum and Lyn. I really like Lyn's game and think he is perfectly suited to play the slot. If we end up with Lyn, I wouldn't complain for a second. I gave Exum the advantage because of his size. Everyone needs to see his highlight reel on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtSmqlzNwvg.

5TH ROUND:

QB, Chuckie Keeton, Utah State 6'2 | 200lbs | 4.6s

Probably the most exciting QB in this draft not named Johnny Manziel. Keeton has explosive athleticism and a game similar to RGIII. I could easily see him going in the third round to some lucky team hoping to repeat the success the Hawks have had with Russell Wilson.

Alternates:

1. QB, Marcus Mariota, Oregon (6'5/210/4.6) - Another dual threat QB.

5TH ROUND:

DB, AJ Marshall, Wake Forrest5'11 | 190lbs | 4.4s

I want to give AJ Marshall a 4th round grade along with the other DBs listed. Hoping he flies under the radar and we pick him up for safety depth and possibly to play the slot.

Really nice work. I've done a few of these and I know how incredibly time consuming they are.

I found the free agency decisions a little odd though.

I don't think Seattle will have the money to franchise anyone, and if they did they wouldn't give it to Brandon Browner. Given his age and dependent skillset, I doubt he'd get enough money in open free agency to justify that kind of expense (about $10 million). The only way I could see them tagging him was if they believed they could tag and trade, but trading franchise tagged players isn't easy and is rarely pulled off.

We also have excellent depth behind Browner. John Schneider finally made his first trade up this year and it was for Tharold Simon, a corner with a body type and skillset that is very similar to Browner. I'm not sure what happens with Thurmond, but I like to see him remain a Seahawk after 2013.

I could see Seattle letting Golden Tate go. It would be a big mistake, but I could see it. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

I could see the Baldwin trade, assuming they put a 2nd round RFA tender on him.

Rice is on a very reasonable contract. I could see him approached for restructure but only if a different big receiver steps up during this season, which is unlikely. Seattle wouldn't even try to restructure unless they were prepared to lose the player they were asking. I don't think Seattle is at that stage yet with either Rice or Miller.

Miller's foot injury worries me, but for now he seems pretty safe. Seattle paid Miller's roster bonus a couple months back. They had a chance for an "easy" out and didn't take it. That plus we don't yet have a true replacement for Miller on hand.

Cuts:

DE-Red Bryant - Yup.DE-Chris Clemons - Probably.

DE-Michael Bennett - I hope he earns a 2nd contract. We'll see.FB-Michael Robinson - Robinson was terrific last season. Ware would need to amaze for Robinson to leave.CB-Antoine Winfield - Probably gone, but he's been an ageless wonder this long, so who knows?RT-Breno Giacomini - I think he stays.CB-Walter Thurmond - I hope he stays.SS-Jeron Johnson - I think we keep him. I don't think he'll cost much.OG-Paul McQuistan - He's a good player, but you kind of get the sense that he's not in the long term plan.QB-Brady Quinn - Can we release him today?

Last edited by kearly on Tue Jun 11, 2013 3:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

kearly wrote:Really nice work. I've done a few of these and I know how incredibly time consuming they are.

I found the free agency decisions a little odd though.

I don't think Seattle will have the money to franchise anyone, and if they did they wouldn't give it to Brandon Browner. Given his age and dependent skillset, I doubt he'd get enough money in open free agency to justify that kind of expense (about $10 million). The only way I could see them tagging him was if they believed they could tag and trade, but trading franchise tagged players isn't easy and is rarely pulled off.

We also have excellent depth behind Browner. John Schneider finally made his first trade up this year and it was for Tharold Simon, a corner with a body type and skillset that is very similar to Browner. I'm not sure what happens with Thurmond, but I like to see him remain a Seahawk after 2013.

I could see Seattle letting Golden Tate go. It would be a big mistake, but I could see it. Let's hope that doesn't happen.

I could see the Baldwin trade, assuming they put a 2nd round RFA tender on him.

Rice is on a very reasonable contract. I could see him approached for restructure but only if a different big receiver steps up during this season, which is unlikely. Seattle wouldn't even try to restructure unless they were prepared to lose the player they were asking. I don't think Seattle is at that stage yet with either Rice or Miller.

Miller's foot injury worries me, but for now he seems pretty safe. Seattle paid Miller's roster bonus a couple months back. They had a chance for an "easy" out and didn't take it. That plus we don't yet have a true replacement for Miller on hand.

I think we tend to underrate Brandon Browner and the fact of the matter is Tharold Simon is yet unproven. Browner will be 29 at the end of his current contract and we haven't really seen signs of age slowing down his game. While a rich, long-term contract is probably ill-advised, I certainly wouldn't mind renting Browner for another season to see if one of Tharold Simon/Antone Exum can emerge as a capable replacement. Besides that, Browner simply deserves to be paid.

I do not understand salary/contract rules well enough to make a determination as to whether we have enough money. From what I understand, Sherman/ET's extensions wouldn't kick in until the 2015 season so wouldn't that allow us enough money to Franchise Tag BB?

Also, I am not so sure I agree with you on DB depth. Sure, we have depth today but we lose Winfield and Thurmond at the end of the season... if we also lose Browner, I think we are suddenly very thin at the position. Like you, I want to see us retain Thurmond but I think it would be foolish to pay him on potential... the reality is that he is probably worth a minimum contract and I could see other, needier teams, paying a premium and taking him away.

On Tate:

Personally, I like Tate more than I do Sidney Rice. I think Tate is a game-breaking talent and appears to be Wilson's favorite receiver. The issue here is that while Tate offers a lot, it still doesn't offer anything different (and likely much less) than the already richly paid Percy Harvin. We would have to cut one of Sidney Rice or Zach Miller to make space for Tate. If Bevell has any say, I think Rice and Harvin are here for the long haul.

IMO, drafting Chris Harper was also very instructive.

On Zach Miller:

Yeah the foot problems worry me, see Antonio Gates and his big drop off after being diagnosed with Plantar Fasciitis. I know Luke Willson needs to prove himself on the field but I think he will give us leverage to re-negotiate with Zach Miller, if Miller is not cut altogether. Luke was one of those that JS needed to have, a la Russell Wilson and Bruce Irvin. Let's not forget this guy is 6'6/250 with 4.5 wheels. Let's also not forget that he grew up playing hockey - which requires great balance and base strength... I think he surprises as an all-around TE, including blocking.

Last edited by SDHawk on Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Shows some promise. Great athleticism. But I haven't found any available game tape that isn't the highlight variety. Need to see where he struggles too.

Don't see a lot of deep out passes in his highlight package. Need to see him try and get balls in tight windows. He looks ok throwing to college open receivers. Not horribly accurately -- these guys are open enough that an accurate throw would result in significant YAC. A lot of underthrown passes to open deep receivers. Again though, it's a highlight package.

I'd like to see more. Looks worth watching this year. But I can't get a feel for him based on that video. Right now, I don't see the kind of passes that Wilson made routine against much better competition. So I wouldn't try to compare the two.

SDHawk wrote:Thanks for your comments, Kearly!

On Browner:

I think we tend to underrate Brandon Browner and the fact of the matter is Tharold Simon is yet unproven. Browner will be 29 at the end of his current contract and we haven't really seen signs of age slowing down his game. While a rich, long-term contract is probably ill-advised, I certainly wouldn't mind renting Browner for another season to see if one of Tharold Simon/Antone Exum can emerge as a capable replacement. Besides that, Browner simply deserves to be paid.

I don't see it as an under rating. I agree and have said elsewhere, that Browner has a chance to resign based on 2 factors. Neither of which have to do with his value to us: The first being age. Second being scheme fit. Age and poor fit is going to reduce the number of suitors for Browner's services. Most teams aren't set up to play the way we do. He's not a highly skilled cover guy and most schemes want that.

I agree, he deserves to get paid. But we've known all along, that the day would come where we had to let deserving and talented players walk because we can't pay them all. Browner's loss is absorbable. We have Lane and Simon waiting in the wings, and resigning Thurmond, if depth is needed, shouldn't be an obstacle at this point. In terms of quality depth -- CB is actually one of our deepest positions on the team. Seattle continues to stock the DB with talent every single year. You can lay money on it that we'll add someone next year too.

Browner is one of the guys you want to take care of. He's a guy who earned his way on the team. You want to reward that. I'm guessing we'll try, and likely harder than the typical 'if the price is right' kind of try. But if a team comes in from nowhere with a ridiculous offer, we need to let him walk with our thanks and gratitude.

Last edited by Attyla the Hawk on Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Attyla the Hawk wrote:Shows some promise. Great athleticism. But I haven't found any available game tape that isn't the highlight variety. Need to see where he struggles too.

Don't see a lot of deep out passes in his highlight package. Need to see him try and get balls in tight windows. He looks ok throwing to college open receivers. Not horribly accurately -- these guys are open enough that an accurate throw would result in significant YAC. A lot of underthrown passes to open deep receivers. Again though, it's a highlight package.

I'd like to see more. Looks worth watching this year. But I can't get a feel for him based on that video. Right now, I don't see the kind of passes that Wilson made routine against much better competition. So I wouldn't try to compare the two.

I saw a couple passes where he throws into tight windows with great force. Also, I think the "underthrown" passes were 45+ yard bombs in that highlight tape so I wouldn't question his arm strength.

Attyla the Hawk wrote:Browner is one of the guys you want to take care of. He's a guy who earned his way on the team. You want to reward that. I'm guessing we'll try, and likely harder than the typical 'if the price is right' kind of try. But if a team comes in from nowhere with a ridiculous offer, we need to let him walk with our thanks and gratitude.

Agree 100%

However on DB depth, again, assuming we lose Antoine Winfield, Walter Thurmond and Brandon Browner... I think we are dangerously thin. If I were to assume, like you, that Tharold Simon is ready to play at a pro-bowl level and perhaps Walter Thurmond is re-signed on the cheap, then maybe we can "absorb" the loss of Brandon Browner. Either way, I think its better safe than sorry.

I think Browner had an amazing season last year, but at the same time, I feel Seattle is at a very strong position of strength depth-wise. You mention "what if's" regarding a multitude of injuries, but we already know the answer. Late last season, Seattle lost Browner, Trufant, and Thurmond all at the same time, and the secondary still played at an elite level.

I'd love to keep Browner on a short contract, but not for anything close to franchise tag money. Seattle can't budget that without cutting a couple good players to do it.

Regarding Tate, while it's true that he's similar to Harvin I don't think they will subtract from one another. Harvin will be a slot guy, and Tate will play outside. Pete even reached out to Tate right after the trade to let him know that the addition of Harvin wouldn't impact Tate's usage.

Harper is a huge project, and I'd argue he has a different skillset than Rice. I think if there's a guy on the current roster that could make Rice expendable, it's Stephen Williams if he takes the next step this season.

As far as I know, Miller doesn't have a roster bonus next year so there's no pressure to release him by a specific date. If Miller struggles with injury, I bet we'll see the team eyeball one of the top TEs in the late 1st round, and if successful in acquiring one, approach Miller with a restructure attempt at that time.

pehawk wrote:Kearly, hermano, any early thoughts on Keeton? I see him climbing like Kaep, Manuel, Ponder (puke).

I think he's basically Mariota with less arm strength. He runs a lot which is a problem in a 200 pound body. His QB skills are a bit unrefined, he still looks like a college QB but he was only a sophomore. He doesn't at all seem like the kind of QB that would declare as a junior (he's a junior in 2013). He was a true sophomore in 2012 so he could potentially enter the draft as late as 2016 if he ends up red-shirting a year at some point.

I think he'll end up a mid-late round pick after he runs out of college eligibility, which would mean the 2015 or 2016 draft.

Last edited by kearly on Wed Jun 12, 2013 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kearly wrote:I'd love to keep Browner on a short contract, but not for anything close to franchise tag money. Seattle can't budget that without cutting a couple good players to do it.

Are you certain of this? I tried to crunch some numbers and it looks like we'll be over $15mm under the cap if we cut both Red and Clem.

kearly wrote:Regarding Tate, while it's true that he's similar to Harvin I don't think they will subtract from one another. Harvin will be a slot guy, and Tate will play outside. Pete even reached out to Tate right after the trade to let him know that the addition of Harvin wouldn't impact Tate's usage.

Never said that they would subtract from each other. My point is that have overlapping abilities and it wouldn't make much sense to tie up close to $20mm in two guys that offer similar skill sets.

kearly wrote:Harper is a huge project, and I'd argue he has a different skillset than Rice. I think if there's a guy on the current roster that could make Rice expendable, it's Stephen Williams if he takes the next step this season.

I think drafting Chris Harper is an indication that Tate's future with the Hawks is fluid... nothing to do with Sidney Rice.

kearly wrote:As far as I know, Miller doesn't have a roster bonus next year so there's no pressure to release him by a specific date. If Miller struggles with injury, I bet we'll see the team eyeball one of the top TEs in the late 1st round, and if successful in acquiring one, approach Miller with a restructure attempt at that time.

I think JS/PC took Luke Willson with the intention of making him a starter one day.

"I tell Jim Harbaugh a lot that he reminds me of his guy Aldon Smith especially when they do a lot of those stunts, he's really good at that stuff. He can come in tight around that corner and he is really good with his hands. Except he's longer and taller (than Smith). He's not as fast as Jevon Kearse but he's built like him. And he is explosive.

The thing about Aaron is he can play DE or he can play D-tackle or stand up. We have different packages for him. He's such a good athlete that he can drop back in coverage. What's really impressive is he's playing outside backer and getting his hands on the No. 1 receiver and you're thinking 'Jeez! This guy can cover a lot of ground.'"

SDHawk wrote:Are you certain of this? I tried to crunch some numbers and it looks like we'll be over $15mm under the cap if we cut both Red and Clem.

I guess that's true. Gotta start stockpiling that money to roll forward for Sherman and Wilson though. I also don't think Browner is worth $10 million for one season. Maybe for another team, but not for us. As good as he is, the performance drop off last year during his absence was remarkably small.

SDHawk wrote:Never said that they would subtract from each other. My point is that have overlapping abilities and it wouldn't make much sense to tie up close to $20mm in two guys that offer similar skill sets.

They play different roles though, so it would be inaccurate to say they overlap. Tate isn't Harvin's backup or anything like that. Both are starting WRs and there's no rule anywhere that says our offense only wants one YAC WR at a time. Also, Pete was asked this question recently and said that he feels Harvin and Tate have substantial differences. He said Tate was more of a pure WR whereas Harvin was more of a RB at WR. He was pretty clear in his response that he didn't feel that they were redundant.

Tate is way too good to let walk, IMO. #2 in catch rate in 2011 and #2 in YPT in 2012. If teams are throwing $9 million a year at him then yeah, Seattle might not have a choice. But I don't get the sense that will happen. It's pretty rare for a WR to see big money without posting a 1000 season.

SDHawk wrote:I think drafting Chris Harper is an indication that Tate's future with the Hawks is fluid... nothing to do with Sidney Rice.

I think Harper was selected because we didn't have a Chris Harper. NFL WRs at 230 pounds are pretty uncommon. Now if Harper really takes off and looks like he should be starting in 2014, then the team has some interesting choices to make, and one of those potential choices is letting Tate walk in FA.

That said, even polished college WRs typically take a couple years to get up to speed in the NFL, and Harper was one of the most unrefined WRs to get drafted in 2013, so I'm not really expecting Harper to force anyone out for at least a couple years. He has a different role than Tate or Rice too, so if the money works out, I could see Seattle keeping all three of them for the next few years.

SDHawk wrote:I think JS/PC took Luke Willson with the intention of making him a starter one day.

Absolutely, but he's not a replacement for Miller as they essentially play different positions. Miller is a dual-threat TE while Willson is a Joker-type. Maybe Anthony McCoy could replace Miller, but McCoy won't play this season and might be too much of an unknown. I think Miller is safe on this roster until we replace him with a similar kind of player that the team feels they can bank on (Austin Seferian Jenkins, etc).

Last edited by kearly on Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

If GMs are smarter than I think they are and listen to the stat geeks, Tate will get paid next year. I think more realistically, he'll just remain (in terms of perception) the "average" receiver who just happened to catch the Fail Mary. I'm guessing he'll get something along the lines of $3-5 million per year, though he deserves a bit more. If we could keep Tate for say 5/25, I think we'd be better to keep him, unless one of the other backups (Kearse, Stephens, Harper, etc) steps up in a huge way this season.

As far as the prospects, I'm on scout vacation right now. I'm still very much burned out from scouting a couple hundred players from January to April.

I did like that you took a DE in the 1st round. I think pass rush will remain the top need next offseason (again).

I like the 4th round selection of Antone Exum. I thought he was going to declare for the 2013 draft and was a little surprised he came back for his senior year. He definitely has the size and physicality that the Seahawks like in their CB's. I didn't realize he was 6-1 he looked a little shorter when I watched him last year.

I'll have to do my homework on the other players you selected, but good job on putting together a well thought out mock draft.

Nice to see the shout out on Donte Moncrief, good choice and I'd be happy with him in the second for sure (based solely on what we've seen and how he projects) but a lot can change over the course of a year for sure

HighlandHawk wrote:Nice to see the shout out on Donte Moncrief, good choice and I'd be happy with him in the second for sure (based solely on what we've seen and how he projects) but a lot can change over the course of a year for sure

Really like his skillset. He looks really fast on tape for that 6'2/220 frame and is way more polished than Chris Harper.

A lot of what happens in 2013, namely growth of younger players, injuries, as well as success, I feel like if the Seahawks can win a Superbowl, much of the young nucleus will take discounts to remain as well as the higher paid players will re-construct for others to remain with the team. Also, there could be certain "x" factors that could come into play, for instance:

With Browner, most of us continue to think that he is an expendable assest, and really don't seem him in the long term plans of the team, but I feel the "Legion of Boom" is a pretty tight knit team. Browner is still young in actual football years as 29 year old CB and if his skill-set does start to deteriorate somewhat I think that are translatable enough for him to have success in a big safety role.

But kicker for Browner is, if the Seahawks make the effort to keep the "Legion of Boom" together, could that make a big difference as to if Richard Sherman would sign for 12 million per if we had signed Browner back committing the Seahawks to keep the league's best 2ndary together as opposed to Sherman signing for 16+ million had we just let Browner go for nothing.

I think these Seahawks will restructure: Miller, Rice, and possibly Bryant, if he's not cut.

More assumptions:

I assume the Seahawks should keep two of Bryant, Bennett, and McDaniel. The odd man out, imo: Bryant. The other two players are more scheme versatile and Bennett is a great at defending the run as a DE while McDaniel is more a Clinton McDonald back-up player who can play 5-tech and provides excellent ST value with his long arms.

I assume the Seahawks should keep one of Winfield and Thurmond. The odd man out, imo: Winfield. Due to age, and I feel if Thurmond is finally healthy, he easily can become one of the better Nickel CBs in the NFL.

I also see the Seahawks keeping one of Giacomini or McQuistan. McQuistan, imo, will get cheaper. While Giacomini will become more expensive.

If Rice restructures, Seahawks can keep Tate and Baldwin for at least one more year. But I agree at least one of Rice, Tate, or Baldwin will be gone from this team unfortunately in 2014. My guess would be Baldwin. Rice, Tate, and Harvin could become an amazing trio and having Tate and Harvin on the field with Lynch is just devastating towards opposing defenders.

Brady Quinn and Jeron Johnson both have a good chance of not making the club this year.

On Harper: While he is a project players, I feel like one of the primary reason's the Seahawks did draft him was he'll be able to fill the Ben Obomanu role playing different spots as well as providing solid to great special teams. The other reason, to win in the NFL, you have to be prepared for everything. Four types of players that were missing from the Seahawks' Offense: Explosive, shifty back w/ home run potential; exposive, shifty, quick WR w/ home run potential; big Bolden-esque physical imposing WR; and athletic pass-catching TE.

I'd just add on the future of the WR position...I'd much rather keep Tate than Rice. Has Tate ever even been hurt? I know Rice somehow made it through a full season last year, but I don't think any of us really expect that to happen again. I'd rather keep the younger, and far healthier Tate going forward if I only could afford one of them.

Plus, it seems like Tate and Wilson have a great chemistry going. You dont want to mess with that. If Rice will restructure, great. But if not, I'd get his bloated contract off the books and keep Tater.

Pandion Haliaetus wrote:But kicker for Browner is, if the Seahawks make the effort to keep the "Legion of Boom" together, could that make a big difference as to if Richard Sherman would sign for 12 million per if we had signed Browner back committing the Seahawks to keep the league's best 2ndary together as opposed to Sherman signing for 16+ million had we just let Browner go for nothing.

This was a major point of consideration leading me to speculate that Browner would be tagged.

Both ET and Sherm have been very clear about their desire to keep the LOB together and Sherm has recently stated that BB was his equal and deserved to be paid the same. While that might not be our reality, it is Sherm's reality and accommodating this could work out for all parties involved. We'll be negotiating Sherm and ET's extensions next off-season and my feeling is that franchising Browner will give us leverage. While $10mm may be a premium for Browner, it is just for a season and could potentially save us a boatload on Sherm and ET. Even if we don't commit to BB long-term, franchising BB furthers the FO's reputation as one that takes care of its players.

Pandion Haliaetus wrote:I assume the Seahawks should keep two of Bryant, Bennett, and McDaniel.

I think we may keep Tony McDaniel. IMO Bryant and Bennett are too rich.

Pandion Haliaetus wrote:I assume the Seahawks should keep one of Winfield and Thurmond.

I could see that but there's still the probability that age catches up with Winfield and injury history catches up with Thurmond. Even if Winfield manages to play at a high level and Thurm manages to stay healthy this season, do you think those risks will go away? Would you feel comfortable relying on these two for multiple seasons?

Pandion Haliaetus wrote:I also see the Seahawks keeping one of Giacomini or McQuistan.

I don't see it. Both are unremarkable and my feeling is Person, Bowie, Moffit, Seymour, Sweezy, et. al. could fill in admirably at lower cost.

Pandion Haliaetus wrote:If Rice restructures, Seahawks can keep Tate and Baldwin for at least one more year. But I agree at least one of Rice, Tate, or Baldwin will be gone from this team unfortunately in 2014. My guess would be Baldwin. Rice, Tate, and Harvin could become an amazing trio and having Tate and Harvin on the field with Lynch is just devastating towards opposing defenders.

I love Tate but you've got to see the situation for what it is.

1. Rice and Harvin have a history with Bevell. 2. Golden Tate will be an unrestricted free agent.3. We can't afford to pay Golden Tate what he is worth, which is probably in excess of $5mm per year.4. Both Harvin and Harper were acquired prior to Tate's contract year.5. Harvin and Harper offer skills that are much more similar to Tate than Sidney Rice.

SDHawk wrote:This was a major point of consideration leading me to speculate that Browner would be tagged.

Both ET and Sherm have been very clear about their desire to keep the LOB together and Sherm has recently stated that BB was his equal and deserved to be paid the same. While that might not be our reality, it is Sherm's reality and accommodating this could work out for all parties involved. We'll be negotiating Sherm and ET's extensions next off-season and my feeling is that franchising Browner will give us leverage. While $10mm may be a premium for Browner, it is just for a season and could potentially save us a boatload on Sherm and ET. Even if we don't commit to BB long-term, franchising BB furthers the FO's reputation as one that takes care of its players.

I can't say I agree on the discount theory. I think Sherman will want to get paid, and he'll have a certain dollar amount. Sherman is a stand up guy, but lets not think he doesn't have an ego. I think that in FA, he'll handle his business in a very similar manner to what we just saw from Revis.

Also, by the time Sherman hits FA, Browner will be over 30 years old. Very few corners maintain pro-bowl ability after hitting 30, and the few that do tend to be smaller corners. Browner is the biggest corner in the league, by a healthy margin. Even if Seattle franchised Browner in 2014, and then signed him to an expensive multi-year extension, it wouldn't take long before performance dropoff would make him a target for restructure or release. If Browner were still here, I think everyone would know that his days would be very much numbered by that point, especially if he was on a big contract.

And with Kam locked up at safety, that kind of kills the position switch idea. You wouldn't pay Browner pro-bowl money to play the Jeron Johnson role.

Though Browner really is an elite level defender, I am okay with letting him walk because at the end of the day, I don't think his remaining shelf life is worth the cap expense. We'd very likely get a 3rd round pick from the league if he left in UFA too, which is a lot better than releasing him a year or two into a big contract and getting nothing.

PC/JS have shown a knack for bargain hunting when it comes to the secondary. A major reason why our roster is so good right now is because we are getting so much value per dollar out of our back 7. But if you pay every one of them pro-bowl money, suddenly that value aspect isn't true anymore, and there aren't any starter spots left to plug in the next big find. That gift for finding great yet cheap contributors in the secondary is one of our biggest advantages over the league, and we'd basically have to discard that advantage for several seasons if we paid the entire legion of boom to do it.

I also have high hopes for Tharold Simon, but I'm holding those thoughts back until we see him in action. Thurmond has missed a lot of time, but he's extremely talented and probably won't cost much to retain next offseason. Finding cheap yet good players needs to be a constant goal so that the Seahawks can remain the NFL's top roster.

I would wait until I see McDaniel play for us before I pencil him in. Also, I was under the impression that McDaniel was strictly a 3-tech. If Bryant and Bennett both leave, who becomes the new 5-tech? I guess it would be Greg Scruggs, though they appeared to be grooming Scruggs for more of a pure 3-tech role last I checked. Or maybe the draft a rookie and start him.

I'm pulling for Bennett big time (as a 5-tech). He reminded me of Justin Tuck last season, while also being a very good run defender. He is EXACTLY what this pass rush desperately needs from it's 5-tech role.

SDHawk wrote:I don't see it. Both are unremarkable and my feeling is Person, Bowie, Moffit, Seymour, Sweezy, et. al. could fill in admirably at lower cost.

Mark that down as the first time in history that someone described Breno as "unremarkable."

I agree that McQuistan is probably gone. Heck, Frank Omiyale had a really nice season for us last year and could have been kept dirt cheap, but they didn't bring him back. Though McQuistan deserves to be kept, I think the depth we have at guard allows us to move on.

Giacomini is yet to be determined, IMO. At his best, he looks like one of the five best right tackles in the game. I thought he dominated the preseason last year and he finished the regular season with his penalty problem under control. Despite that, I think he needs to continue improving to justify a 2nd contract. If he takes that next step in 2013, then I sign him back no question (I'd be pretty surprised if he got much interest league wide).

Of course, if I'm wrong and Giacomini is getting big offers from other teams, then Seattle has to evaluate their roster at that point and decide what's best. Right now our backup group is physically talented but inexperienced. I also think Sweezy is our long term RG, though it's true that he has the physical tools to play tackle.

SDHawk wrote:I love Tate but you've got to see the situation for what it is.

1. Rice and Harvin have a history with Bevell. 2. Golden Tate will be an unrestricted free agent.3. We can't afford to pay Golden Tate what he is worth, which is probably in excess of $5mm per year.4. Both Harvin and Harper were acquired prior to Tate's contract year.5. Harvin and Harper offer skills that are much more similar to Tate than Sidney Rice.

I agree with a few of those points, but don't forget that Wilson and Tate are a close knit pair both on the field and off it. Towards the end of last season, Tate clearly emerged as Wilson's favorite target. I think Sando had the exact breakdown, but over the final 7 games or so Tate had 33% more receptions than 2nd place finisher Sidney Rice. 32 to 24? Something like that.

Tate also had quite a few big catches and big plays last season that couldn't be replaced by Chris Harper. His YAC TD against Minnesota, his YAC TD (which turned out to be the game winner) against Carolina. His (should have been) game winner at the end of regulation vs. Chicago. Maybe Percy Harvin can replace that, but Harvin doesn't play the same position and has significant differences to Tate in usage and skillset.

WR is one of those positions on the team where you can never have too many good ones. So if Tate can be kept at a reasonable figure, I don't see much room for debate. You keep him. Basically, you never want to toss away a player who's performance outstrips his paycheck. This team is great specifically because it has so many players who are outperforming their pay level. If Tate gets the contract that I think he will, then he'll likely remain in that category. If you could get 90% of Percy Harvin for 50% of the cost, you'd take it, right?

Tate's counting stats looked pedestrian, but his efficiency numbers were elite and he literally won games for us on multiple occasions.

Right now, Tate is one of our most valuable players on offense, while also being one of the few Seahawks who remains under the radar nationally. It's not very often that you can be a championship caliber team and be able to keep one of your best players at a reasonable rate of cost. But that's the way things are headed for Tate right now, and if it remains so I think Seattle would be wise to retain him.

I can't say I agree on the discount theory. I think Sherman will want to get paid, and he'll have a certain dollar amount. Sherman is a stand up guy, but lets not think he doesn't have an ego. I think that in FA, he'll handle his business in a very similar manner to what we just saw from Revis.

From what I've seen and heard, there is a chemistry/cohesion in this locker room unlike in any other locker room. My belief is that many of the players want to stay and would take a hometown discount - hell, even players from other teams have given the Hawks a discount (see Winfield, Avril, Bennett), why wouldn't our own players? Maybe hometown discount isn't the right phrase. I'm only suggesting the possibility that Sherman may choose to get paid very handsomely as opposed to insisting on getting paid reckless amounts of money. We've heard of franchise players taking paycuts "for the good of the team" countless times before. Why is Sherman the exception?

I would wait until I see McDaniel play for us before I pencil him in. Also, I was under the impression that McDaniel was strictly a 3-tech. If Bryant and Bennett both leave, who becomes the new 5-tech? I guess it would be Greg Scruggs, though they appeared to be grooming Scruggs for more of a pure 3-tech role last I checked. Or maybe the draft a rookie and start him.

I have Jesse Williams there. In my super-fake mock scenario, we look like this:

Of course, if I'm wrong and Giacomini is getting big offers from other teams, then Seattle has to evaluate their roster at that point and decide what's best. Right now our backup group is physically talented but inexperienced. I also think Sweezy is our long term RG, though it's true that he has the physical tools to play tackle.

Alvin Bailey and Mike Person reportedly look really good at RT and theres also Michael Bowie. Were paying Giacomini $4mm+ this season. I'm not sure we'll keep him for 2014 and beyond.

Right now, Tate is one of our most valuable players on offense, while also being one of the few Seahawks who remains under the radar nationally. It's not very often that you can be a championship caliber team and be able to keep one of your best players at a reasonable rate of cost. But that's the way things are headed for Tate right now, and if it remains so I think Seattle would be wise to retain him.

Yeah and with Harvin out and Tate's budding rapport with Russell Wilson, I don't think Tate will remain under the radar for long, making it exponentially more difficult to retain him.. but I think you've been coming around to that realization, recently.

...

There's also the possibility that we cut Zach Miller. He's not been looking so healthy lately and the Hawks have been hyperactive at the position. That might give us the flexibility to work something out with Tate.

Regardless of our depth at CB I just don't see how you can feel good about letting Browner go. That secondary is what keeps that defense together even though they are weak through the linebackers and d-line. You actually create a pass rush and then talk to me about trading or letting go of Browner.

I enjoy ruining threads by making them about personal attacks and then commenting about how personal attacks make the other person's argument invalid.

Attyla the Hawk wrote:I really would hate it if we went DE early in the draft. Isn't Irvin/Bennet/Clemons/Avril enough? Do we really need another edge rusher while not addressing interior rush?

I'd really like for us to stop acquiring light DEs turned SAMs in order to upgrade our interior pass rush. It's simply ignoring the problem.

Clem is likely a roster cut and Bennett is a free agent. Jury is still out on Avril.

On top of all this, Aaron Lynch isn't some ordinary DE. Here's what you said in Kearly's Crystal Ball post:

Agreed. His combination of explosion on the snap, coupled with his ability to use his arms to get a decisive advantage early in his rush is amazing. I watched him just after watching Ra'shede Hageman and the difference in quality is instantly recognizable. And that quality doesn't diminish whether he's lined up over the guard or outside the tackle.

Lynch is one I'll be expecting to be an absolute beast. He could easily play his way out of our scope come draft day.

That's true. I still like Lynch and will watch him as closely as possible this year. The thing is, if he's that special he won't be there for us. I don't want us taking whatever sloppy seconds fall to the last third of the draft at DE. I'd much rather take a flyer on a DT prospect. Obviously if Lynch ends up tearing it up, or if Clowney falls to the last few picks, I'd change my mind. The latter won't happen. The former, if it does, means that he trips on his meat during the season and probably isn't worth the first round pick to begin with.

I don't want some generically available mid 20th overall DE talent. That's the drafting equivalent of getting Tarvaris to be your starter because you don't like the alternatives. Adding another DE just means our pass rush will be critically flawed for yet another season.